Scientists have different areas of emphasis. Just because Banner and Stark are scientists doesn't mean Pym doesn't offer something new. Yes, he is another big brain, but he has a different specialty: subatomic particles. He can easily be worked into the plot in a way that is not redundant and engaging. All it takes is quality writing, and if they get Joss back or someone talented on board, easily can be done without an Ant-Man solo. That said, I'd like him to get a solo before coming on board.
That doesn't really respond to the comment you quoted, but the comment before that one. Yes, if they worked subatomic particles into the storyline, that would give him a reason to be there, but the problem I referred to would remain. Screen time, screen time quality.
They introduced Hawkeye and Black Widow successfully, even with limited screen time to work with. (Yes, they previously appeared in Thor and IM2, but those brief cameos can't be offered as examples of real "intros" or backstory....those cameos did nothing to show who the characters were, beyond generic SHIELD badasses.) I strongly disagree that heroes with powers require any more backstory than those without powers. "This is Ant-Man....he shrinks." "This is Wasp....she shrinks, too. And flies around." "This is Vision. He's an android who can phase through walls." "This is Quicksilver. He's fast....real fast."
Give audiences more credit for picking up on things, and getting into the story easily enough. Even kids can understand a superhero's (or villain's) powers without having to go into thirty minutes of exposition.
You think I'm not giving the audience credit? Let's get down to it then, because this particular point is one that I strongly believe you're way off on.
I give the audience credit for picking up on things. More than you, I think. Audiences pick up on when something is contrived, silly, juvenille, or arbitrary, as many things in comics are. If it is one of those things, they don't *care* about it. They ask themselves why should I care if this hero wins. They'll dislike it, no matter how easy to understand it is, because they pick up on subtext. That's why origin stories take 30 minutes, to get the audience to
buy into it, not to
understand it. Many comics fans disagree, because they already buy into the characters emotionally, and simply cannot fathom how someone can't instantly love Ant-Man or whoever, as soon as their powers are explained or shown. These fans, I believe, are naive, and blinded to non-fan perspectives by their own love for the characters.
As for credit, I wish you would give the filmmakers a great deal of credit for dilligently and often brilliantly pulling the audience into these characters. The reason you see thirty and forty minute origin stories is that the filmmakers are attaching motivation, internal conflict, metaphor and most importantly limits and implicity rules to these superhuman abilities. This way, the audience not only cares about the abilities, and how they're used, but the film has tension because the audience knows, visually, what the powers can and cannot do. This has happened in every single superhero film, even the ones that you love. This is what did not happen in Green Lantern, Catwoman, Batman and Robin and even Spider-Man 3. Without this tension and emotional buy in, superhuman characters are just deus ex machinas, who can win any bout by pulling a new ability out of their behind, and indeed, that is what usually happens in bad superhero movies.
This is why you will never see superhuman abilities handled so glibly "This is Wonder Man, he shoots ionic energy" in any
successful live action superhero film or television show. You will see this on cartoons, where the audience is either immature or simply does not expect to be brought into the characters emotionally. Here, characters are two dimensional at the very best - emotionally, though they are also physically two dimensional. That is where all that is required is an intellectual understanding, since there is no emotional buy in to be had, because you don't need to recoup half a billion dollars, so even if no jaded cynical adults buy into it, you still can sell toy commercials and make your money back.
I also wish you would give an even greater amount of credit to Joss Whedon for making a masterpiece out of what could have easily been a clusterf---, or Iron Man and Friends. When you talk about adding scientists, ignoring how brilliant it was to have exactly two scientists so that the lab scene became a place for a plot-crucial friendship to develop, I think you're more concerned with having characters the way you want than actually having a good film, or respecting how much it took to make the film the way it was. But if you don't respect the filmmakers creating the same magic you had when reading comics as an innocent child in millions of cynical jaded adults, and you don't respect the craftsmanship it took to put just six heroes into Avengers and give them all their due, then of course you'd disagree that heroes with powers don't require any more backstory than those without. Of course you'd think 'the more scientists, the better.' Of course you'd think bowmen and luchadore agents were generic agents. Of course you wouldn't count the badass (your words) introductions of characters as real "intros" (and add
those quotes to it). Of course you'd think the audience could hear "This is vision, he's an android who can phase through walls" an actually be interested to learn more rather than wondering why he didn't just phase through whatever attack he got hit with and drop a pencil in the bad guy's heart.
I would suggest either writing a script, or reading a book on scriptwriting. I think it would take care of this misbelief that all the audience needs is an intellectual understanding.
